4 thoughts on “Israel Invasion of Lebanon: U.S.-Iran Proxy War? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. The neocons have wanted a war with Iran for a long time.

    Neocons think Iran is an Islamic threat while it is not true. The Islamic threat is all over rather in Iran only. In the past, neocons coudn’t get rid of Communism and it still exists. They are using the same tactics against Islam and coming up with the same crappy plans which they used against the USSR. I dont think they could be successful.

    BTW, nice article.

  2. Unfortunately, the answer to all your rhetorical questions is “yes.” Neither the US nor Israel (I mean the governments of course) want peace. In fact, just the opposite — they are terrified of peace. With any reduction in tension, people might ome to their senses and boot them out. As for Iran, I don’t believe they are ny real threat. It’s all trumped up hysteria by the neocons who are desparate to try and start WW III in the Middle East. Do ANY of our co-religionists, especially here in the US, understand what kind of maniacs are ruling Israel AND the United States right now? Sometimes I wonder.

  3. Just finished reading the Hersh article (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060710fa_fact) on the understated war between Bush and the generals over Iran and Iraq and other, more internal issues. The good news is very good, indeed– though we are accustomed to stereotypes about military thinking, some generals and analysts in the Pentagon now seem quite capable of learning from their mistakes and (equally important) the mistakes of others. A few, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Pace, have challenged Bush and Cheney on a number of their assumptions, and in the process have won tactical victories here and there.

    But it will take more than reluctant generals to contain Bush. The messianic zeal driving this civilian commander-in-chief is delivered in continuous briefings by neocon tutors who assert nothing less than dispatching Iran is the key to geopolitical salvation for America. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush is ill-equipped with the intellectual assets to appreciate the wisdom of advice from Cheney, Wolfowitz and others, and still has not absorbed even the lessons he should have mastered before entering the presidential race in 2000. Eight full months into office, having spent most of his spare time plotting (with tutors) against Saddam Hussein, Bush was interrupted by the inconvenient news the war on terror had started without him, and had nothing to do with Saddam.

    Bush never has shaken the paranoia which seized him, and which drives his misguided policy in Iran and Iraq and his megalomania at home (NSA spying). Though Bush seemingly cannot get enough information, he is at best a scrambling opportunist, and cannot distinguish the wise from the unwise, the good from the bad. Bush has absolutely no sense of history– despite his claim to admire Churchill– and worse, no understanding of politically complex situations. He simply leaves these as “issues” to be handled by others for him. As an example of the limited dimensions of Bush thinking, his decision to make his favorite adviser (with academic grounding in political science, but no professional background in diplomacy) the Secretary of State rivals proposing Myers as a justice of the US Supreme Court.

    Bush has little sense of the power he wields or his responsibility for it. In October, 2005, Bush exploded at members of his own party who met with him to make the case against spying on Americans without court approval– an act patently illegal and the caliber of mistake not seen since Nixon tried to stonewall his way out of Watergate. But what Bush said next took everyone’s breath away. “Quit throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s nothing but a GD*&&# piece of paper! Incredibly enough, the event was underreported through pressdom because it was tantamount to Bush shoving his hand into his coat like Napoleon, and declaring himself emperor. It showed a dangerous emotional self-indulgence at the expense of others, and a narrowed intellect in imoments of stress that could imperil millions. With little patience for obstacles or impenetrable subjects, Bush might officially outsource the presidency, if he could. His critics insist he effectively did so long ago. Like his father, Bush wants to “be” president without any of the understandings and labor this might involve.

    Beside this “wannabe” president, we have Ahmadinejad, another pol who was not given a great chance at winning his presidential race, either. Ahmadinejad bears many surprising similarities to Bush– both have traditionalist military, political and religious constituencies. Both are street-level pols who like to connect with crowds of supporters, but who have little understanding, sympathy or time for critics or different points of view. Both like the flourishes of public speaking (even if crafted by others), and the emotional buttons available to them– but must be carefully and continually kept safely away from impulsive speech. Bush dislikes open sessions with the press for the same reason Ahmadinejad does, and argumentive, emotional ranting is always close at hand. Both Bush and Ahmandinejad are reflexive nationalists, and consider the world their personal stage.

    Here are two leaders entering a situation fraught with challenge and risk to the whole world, whose only qualification is to lead a cavalry charge. Perhaps it is not too late to explore colonization of Mars– and put Bush on the first mission.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link